Export file:


  • RIS(for EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)
  • BibTex
  • Text


  • Citation Only
  • Citation and Abstract

The Tiller-Flotten research site: Geotechnical characterization of a very sensitive clay deposit

1 Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI), Trondheim, Norway
2 Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway

Special Issues: Characterization and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils used for geotesting

The Tiller-Flotten research site was developed through the Norwegian GeoTest site (NGTS) project. The site consists of a more than 50 m thick marine clay deposit. The top 7.5 m of the deposit shows a low to medium sensitivity, while sensitivity increases up to approximately 200 from 7.5 to 20 m below the ground surface. A wide variety of in situ and laboratory data have been acquired to investigate the geotechnical, geological and geophysical properties of the material. The sensitive clay shows low to medium plasticity and a liquidity index (IL) above 1.6. It shows some overconsolidation (OCR ≈ 1.5-3.0) linked to the glacial history of the area. Its strength and stiffness properties show good agreement with some well-known correlations for sensitive clays. Anisotropy in undrained shear strength is also similar to other sensitive clays of Norway. It is hoped that the next years will see an increased use of this benchmark test site at Tiller-Flotten. The site can be used as a research tool, as training and teaching facilities and as ground for development of new soil models, testing of new investigation methods and further advance the state-of-the-art in sensitive clay material.
  Article Metrics


1. Gregersen O (1981) The quick clay landslide in Rissa, Norway. Nor Geotech Inst Publ 135: 1-6.

2. L'Heureux JS, Eilertsen RS, Glimsdal S, et al. (2012) The 1978 quick clay landslide at Rissa, mid Norway: subaqueous morphology and tsunami simulations. Submarine mass movements and their consequences, Springer, 507-516.

3. Lacasse S (2013) 8th Terzaghi Oration Protecting society from landslides-the role of the geotechnical engineer, 15-34.

4. Solberg IL, Long M, Baranwal VC, et al. (2016) Geophysical and geotechnical studies of geology and sediment properties at a quick-clay landslide site at Esp, Trondheim, Norway. Eng Geol 208: 214-230.    

5. L'Heureux JS, Lunne T, Lacasse S, et al. (2017) Norway's National GeoTest Site Research Infrastructure (NGTS). Unearth the Future, Connect beyond Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering.

6. Gylland A, Long M, Emdal A, et al. (2013) Characterisation and engineering properties of Tiller clay. Eng Geol 164: 86-100.    

7. Leroueil S, Hamouche K, Ravenasi F, et al. (2003) Geotechnical characterization and properties of a sensitive clay from Quebec. In: Tan TS, Phoon KK, Hight DW, et al., Characterisation and engineering properties of natural soils, 1: 363-394.

8. Reite AJ, Sveian H, Erichsen E (1999) Trondheim fra istid til nåtid: landskapshistorie og løsmasser. Norges geologiske undersøkelse.

9. Long M, L'Heureux JS, Fiskvik Bache BK, et al. (2019) Site characterisation and example of results from large scale testing at the Klett quick clay research site. AIMS Geosci 5: 344-389.    

10. Quinteros S, Gundersen A, L'Heureux JS, et al. (2019) Øysand research site: Geotechnical characterization of deltaic sandy-silty soils. AIMS Geosci 5: 750-783.    

11. L'Heureux J, Carroll R, Lacasse S, et al. (2017) New Research Benchmark Test Sites in Norway. Geotech Front 2017, 631-640.

12. NGI (2016) Standardization of in situ tests and field work. Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI), 37.

13. NGI (2016) Laboratory procedures and standards for the NGTS project. Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI), 45.

14. Emdal A, Gylland A, Amundsen HA, et al. (2016) Mini-block sampler. Can Geotech J 53: 1235-1245.    

15. undersøkelse Ng, Misund A, Banks D, et al. (1994) Weichselian and Holocene geology of Sør-Trøndelag and adjacent parts of Nord-Trøndelag county, Central Norway, Norges geologiske undersøkelse.

16. Reite AJ (1995) Deglaciation of the Trondheimsfjord area, central Norway. Norg Geol Unders Bull 427: 19-21.

17. Andersen BG, Mangerud J, Sørensen R, et al. (1995) Younger Dryas ice-marginal deposits in Norway. Quat Int 28: 147-169.    

18. Wolff FC (1979) Beskrivelse til de berggrunnsgeologiske kart Trondheim og Østersund, 1: 250, 000. (In Norwegian). Norges geologiske undersøkelse (NGU), 55.

19. Rosenqvist IT (1953) Considerations on the sensitivity of Norwegian quick-clays. Geotechnique 3: 195-200.    

20. Bjerrum L (1973) Problems of soil mechanics and construction on soft clays and structurally unstable soils, Proc. 8th ICSMFE, 111-159.

21. Bjerrum L (1967) Engineering geology of Norwegian normally-consolidated marine clays as related to settlements of buildings. Geotechnique 17: 83-118.    

22. Moum J (1965) Falling drop used for grain-size analysis of fine-grained materials. Sedimentology 5: 343-347.    

23. NGF (2011) Veiledning for symboler og definisjoner i geoteknikk: Identifisering og klassifisering i jord. Norwegian Geotechnical Society Oslo, Norway.

24. Mitchell JK, Soga K (2005) Fundamentals of soil behavior. Fundamentals of soil behavior. NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

25. Leroueil S, Tavenas F, Samson L, et al. (1983) Preconsolidation pressure of Champlain clays. Part Ⅱ. Laboratory determination. Can Geotech J 20: 803-816.

26. Burland JB (1990) On the compressibility and shear strength of natural clays. Géotechnique 40: 329-378.

27. Gylland AS, Rueslåtten H, Jostad HP, et al. (2013) Microstructural observations of shear zones in sensitive clay. Eng Geol 163: 75-88.    

28. NGF (1989) Veiledning for utførelse av dreiesondering.

29. Sandven R, Watn A (1995) Soil classification and parameter evaluation from piezocone tests: Results from the major site investigations at Oslo Main Airport, Gardermoen. Proceedings of CPT'95 3: 35-55.

30. Robertson PK (1990) Soil classification using the cone penetration test. Can Geotech J 27: 151-158.    

31. Schneider J, Hotstream J, Mayne PW, et al. (2012) Comparing CPTU Q-F and Q-Δ u 2/σv0' soil classification charts. Géotech Lett 2: 209-215.

32. Donohue S, Long M, L'Heureux JS, et al. (2014) The use of geophysics for sensitive clay investigations. Landslides in Sensitive Clays, Springer, 159-178.

33. Long M, Donohue S, L'Heureux JS, et al. (2012) Relationship between electrical resistivity and basic geotechnical parameters for marine clays. Can Geotech J 49: 1158-1168.    

34. Solberg IL, Rønning JS, Dalsegg E, et al. (2008) Resistivity measurements as a tool for outlining quick-clay extent and valley-fill stratigraphy: a feasibility study from Buvika, central Norway. Can Geotech J 45: 210-225.    

35. Helle TE, Nordal S, Aagaard P, et al. (2015) Long-term effect of potassium chloride treatment on improving the soil behavior of highly sensitive clay-Ulvensplitten, Norway. Can Geotech J 53: 410-422.

36. Priscilla P, D'Ignazio M, L'Heureux JS, et al. (2019) CPTU correlations for Norwegian clays: an update. AIMS Geosci 5: 82-103.    

37. Mayne PW (1986) CPT indexing of in situ OCR in clays, ASCE, 780-793.

38. Marchetti S (1980) In situ tests by flat dilatometer. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 106.

39. Lacasse S, Lunne T (1989) Calibration of dilatometer correlations. Nor Geotech Inst Publ 106: 299-321.

40. Hamouche KK, Leroueil S, Roy M, et al. (1995) In situ evaluation of K0 in eastern Canada clays. Can Geotech J 32: 677-688.    

41. L'Heureux JS, Ozkul Z, Lacasse S, et al. (2017) A revised look at the coefficient of earth pressure at rest for Norwegian Clays. In (NGF) NGS, Oslo, Norway.

42. L'Heureux JS, Long M (2017) Relationship between shear-wave velocity and geotechnical parameters for Norwegian clays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 143: 04017013.    

43. Long M, Donohue S (2007) In situ shear wave velocity from multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) tests at eight Norwegian research sites. Can Geotech J 44: 533-544.    

44. Olafsdottir EA, Bessason B, Erlingsson S, et al. (2019) Benchmarking of an open source MASW software using data from four Norwegian Geo-Test Sites, Proceedings of the XVⅡ ECSMGE-2019.

45. Hardin BO, Drnevich VP (1972) Shear modulus and damping in soils: design equations and curves. J Soil Mech Found Div 98: 667-692.

46. Janbu N (1985) Soil models in offshore engineering. Géotechnique 35: 241-281.

47. Sandbækken G, Berre T, Lacasse S (1986) Oedometer testing at the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute. Consolidation of soils: Testing and evaluation, ASTM International.

48. Lunne T, Long M, Forsberg CF (2003) Characterisation and engineering properties of Onsøy clay. In: Tan TS, Phoon KK, Hight DW, et al., Characterisation and engineering properties of natural soils, 1: 395-427.

49. Karlsrud K, Hernandez-Martinez FG (2013) Strength and deformation properties of Norwegian clays from laboratory tests on high-quality block samples. Can Geotech J 50: 1273-1293.    

50. Leroueil S, Hight DW (2003) Behaviour and properties of natural soils and soft rocks. In: Tan TS, Phoon KK, Hight DW, et al., Characterisation and engineering properties of natural soils, 1: 29-254.

51. Lacasse S, Jamiolkowski M, Lancellotta R, et al. (1981) In situ characteristics of two Norwegian clays, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 507-511.

52. Ladd CC, Foott R (1974) New design procedure for stability of soft clays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 100: 763-786.

53. Thakur V, Oset F, Viklund M, et al. (2014) En omforent anbefaling for bruk av anisotropifaktorer i prosjektering i norske leirer. NVE, SV, JERNBANEVERKET (ed) Naturfareprosjektet Dp 6.

54. Ladd CC (1991) Stability evaluation during staged construction. J Geotech Eng 117: 540-615.    

55. Flaate K (1966) Factors influencing the results of vane tests. Can Geotech J 3: 18-31.    

56. Soydemir C (1976) Strength anisotropy observed through simple shear tests. In Janbu N, Jørstad F, Kjærnsli B (Eds.), editor, Laurits Bjerrum Memorial Volume-Contributions to Soil Mechanics Oslo, Norway, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI), 99-103.

57. Gylland AS, Jostad HP, Nordal S, et al. (2013) Micro-level investigation of the in situ shear vane failure geometry in sensitive clay. Geotechnique 63: 1264.    

58. Lunne T, Berre T, Strandvik S (1998) Sample disturbance effects in deep water soil investigations, Society of Underwater Technology.

59. Landon MM, DeGroot DJ, Sheahan TC (2007) Nondestructive sample quality assessment of a soft clay using shear wave velocity. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133: 424-432.    

60. Hight DW, Leroueil S (2003) Characterisation of soils for engineering purposes. In: Tan TS, Phoon KK, Hight DW, et al., Characterisation and engineering properties of natural soils, 1: 255-360.

61. Tanaka H, SHARMA P, Tsuchida T, et al. (1996) Comparative study on sample quality using several types of samplers. Soils Found 36: 57-68.

62. Tanaka H, Nishida K (2007) Suction and Shear Wave Velocity Measurements for Assessing Sample Quality. Stud Geotech Mech 29: 163-175.

63. Donohue S, Long M (2010) Assessment of sample quality in soft clay using shear wave velocity and suction measurements. Géotechnique 60: 883-889

© 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licese (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Download full text in PDF

Export Citation

Article outline

Show full outline
Copyright © AIMS Press All Rights Reserved